KEA‘AU-PĀHOA ADVISORY GROUP (KPAG) Meeting No. 7 … KPAG Mtg 7 Summary FINAL... · 2015. 8. 19. · KEA‘AU-PĀHOA ADVISORY GROUP (KPAG) Meeting No. 7 Summary Monday, September

KEA‘AU-PĀHOA ADVISORY GROUP (KPAG) Meeting No. 7 Summary

Monday, September 28, 2009 – 5:45 p.m.

Keaau Elementary School Keaau, Hawaii

PURPOSE:

1) Provide an overview of the Environmental Process and Timeline; 2) Revisit the proposed Five Alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Assessment; and 3) Present findings for the Environmental, Archaeological, and Cultural Impacts.

SUMMARY OF MEETING: I. Welcome and Remarks – Jiro Sumada, Hawaii Department of Transportation

(HDOT) Deputy Director The following representatives of the project team were present: Hawai‘i State Department of Transportation (HDOT) - Ken Tatsuguchi, Nelson Sagum, and Dina Lau with the Planning Branch; Robert Taira from the Hawaii District Office; Scot Urada with the Design Branch; and Dean Yogi with the Right-of-Way Branch. SSFM International, Inc. - Cheryl Soon, Jo-Anna Herkes, Robin Barnes, Heather Forester, Doug Zang, and Genevieve Runningwind; and Learning Unlimited – Facilitators Barbara Lively and Diane Gentry. KPAG Members marked with a symbol were present:

Name Group Hunter Bishop Public Relations Specialist, County of Hawaii Larry Brown County of Hawaii Project Manager for PRCP and PCDP

and Hawaiian Paradise Park Resident Tom Brown Mass Transit Agency Susan Cordell Paradise Park Resident

Oliver English W.H. Shipman, Limited

Neil Erickson Architect, Planner, Community Service Member, and Cyclist

Dina Lau HDOT Keith Lawrence Sitting in for Frank Lawrence Manny Mattos Resident & Retired Police Officer

Name Group Emily Naeole Council Member, District 5

Jon Olson Puna Traffic Safety Committee & PCDP Chairman & Sierra Club Big Island Chapter, Moku Loa Group

Wesley Owens VP of Orchidland Association and Cyclist Jenny Perry Resident of Kapoho and Produce and Flower Transporter Nelson Sagum HDOT Elizabeth Salfen PCDP Community Liaison & PMAR Working

Committee; and Weed and Seed Kaniu

Stocksdale Attended for Representative Faye Honohono

Damon Tucker Friends of Puna's Future Mr. Fred Blas, Dan Domizio, and Paula Kekahuna have resigned from the KPAG. Friends of the Advisory Group and public participants in attendance included: Gregg Smith, Joyce F., Elizabeth Weatherford, Betty R., James Weatherford, Rachelle Ley, Erhard Autrata, and Stephanie Bath.

II. Overview of Environmental Process and Timeline – Cheryl Soon, SSFM

A revised version of the Environmental Process timeline was distributed (Attachment 1). The project team is currently drafting the Environmental Assessment (EA). A draft EA is expected to be released in early 2010. The KPAG will reconvene after the publishing of the Draft EA. Ms. Soon reviewed what was done at the first six KPAG Meetings (Attachment 2). It was reinforced that Safety is the highest priority in the Purpose and Need Statement.

III. The Five Alternatives – Robin Barnes SSFM Alternative One is the No Build Alternative. This includes the existing roadway plus the Shoulder Lane Conversion Project. The Pahoa-bound shoulder will be converted to a peak afternoon travel lane. A new Keaau-bound lane will be constructed and will include a new shoulder. Finally, a traffic signal will be installed at Shower Drive. Cross sections for this design, by Wilson Okamoto, were presented (Attachment 2). Alternative Two is the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative. This alternative includes low-cost improvements to intersections plus methods to improve multi-modal use of the corridor such as increased bus use. Additional examples of TSMs include: turn lane additions or lengthening, roundabouts, transit improvements, and traffic flow improvements. TSMs also consider land use strategies such as Village Centers.

Alternatives Three to Five are the three Build Alternatives. Build Alternatives would include lengthened turn lanes at intersections, a widened shoulder for bicycles and pedestrians, and bus pullouts. Cross sections and plan and profile examples were provided (Attachment 2). • Alternative 3 widens the road to two lanes in each direction, for a total of four lanes,

to Ainaloa Boulevard. Beyond that, the road would be one lane in each direction, for a total of two lanes.

• Alternative 4 widens the road to two lanes in each direction, for a total of four lanes, for the entire length of the project.

• Alternative 5 widens the road to three lanes in each direction, for a total of six lanes, to Paradise Drive. Then, widens the road to two lanes in each direction, for a total of four lanes, to Kahakai Boulevard. Beyond that, the road would be one lane in each direction, for a total of two lanes.

It was stated that the median widens from 10 feet to 15 feet at intersections. Drainage is consistent with HDOT Best Management Practices (BMP). Guardrails will be located where applicable. Crosswalks will be located at intersections. Intersections with bus pullouts will have shared deceleration and acceleration lanes for buses and vehicles. It was noted that the KPAG prefers bus stop locations to be on both sides of the highway in a given location. It was also noted that the KPAG would like a bus stop present at Orchidland Drive. The idea of frontage roads was raised again. This subject was discussed at a previous meeting where KPAG Members were concerned with takings and intersection closures. This subject will be discussed further at the next KPAG Meeting.

IV. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives A. Botanical – Ron Terry, Geometrician

A botanical survey was conducted within the State Right-of-Way, plus an additional sixty feet on each side of the Right-of-Way. The objectives of this survey were to describe vegetation, list encountered species, and identify and record threatened or endangered plant species. In conclusion, no threatened or endangered plant species were discovered. The project would not adversely impact the botanical resources or vegetation of Puna or the Island of Hawaii. To minimize impacts, care should be taken to avoid the introduction of invasive species on heavy equipment. For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

B. Faunal – Reggie David, Rana Biological Consulting, Inc. Field surveys were conducted between July 9 and July 13, 2009. The entire Right-of-Way was walked on both sides of the road to make aural and visual observations. It was noted that four threatened or endangered species are known from the general area, which include: Hawaiian Petrel, Newell’s Shearwater, Hawaiian Hawk, and Hawaiian Hoary Bat. These species were not found along the corridor. No mammalian species currently listed or proposed for listing under either the State of Hawaii or of the Federal Endangered Species Statutes was detected during the course of the survey. For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

C. Aquatic Resources – Snookie Mello, AECOS Biologists walked and slowly drove both sides of Keaau-Pahoa Road to investigate each culvert, drainage ditch, and stream. Dominant vegetation, aquatic biota, water quality, and streambed morphology were recorded. A literature search was also conducted for other aquatic and water quality surveys in the area. Numerous culverts and drainage ditches were present, as well as one intermittent stream. There was no flow in the unnamed stream (locally known as Waipahoehoe) at the time of the survey. The only invertebrate observed within the survey area was the Giant African snail, a terrestrial species. No aquatic organism was present in any of the small, isolate pools inspected on May 21, 2009. In conclusion, No threatened or endangered species (DLNR, 1998; USFWS, 2009a) associated with aquatic environments were encountered in the survey area and none is expected since no suitable habitats are present. A preliminary meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) indicated that a non-jurisdictional determination is anticipated. A formal submittal for jurisdictional determination will be made to ACOE. For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

D. Hydrology – Geoff Casburn, CMF The goals of this study were to: 1) Determine the size of the existing highway culverts and bridges in order to meet current DOT standards and 2) Provide infiltration facilities to limit storm runoff from the new, wider highway. Watershed characteristics were recorded for each culvert which includes: land area, soil type, slope, land use, and stream systems. It was noted that Waipahoehoe Watershed is the largest watershed in the project. Construction on the highway would allow water to pass through without changes to natural flow. New pavement runoff will be addressed by swales and seepage pits, so properties downstream will not be burdened. For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

A KPAG Member stated that the Waipahoehoe Watershed is modified by man upstream.

E. Questions and Answer Period

The following questions were received: • Aquatic resources may have missed and ESA Dragonfly species.

RESPONSE: Aquatic resources stated there was no water, hence no suitable habitat. It was stated that this will be researched further.

• Aquatic resources need to address how storm runoff will affect frogs, guppies, and dragonflies.

RESPONSE: Aquatic resources will coordinate with hydrology. • Where has the runoff model been used where there is as much rainfall as there is

in Puna? RESPONSE: This model is accepted and used statewide.

• How are bus riders going to cross at Makuu if heading south? RESPONSE: There will be a crosswalk with a break in the median barrier and refuge area.

• Questions regarding traffic were deferred to the next KPAG Meeting where traffic will be discussed.

V. Archaeological and Cultural Impacts A. Archaeological – Hal Hammatt, Cultural Surveys Hawaii

The archaeological inventory survey involved a pedestrian inspection of the entire project area. The archaeologists conducted sweeps, with personnel spaced 5-10 m apart. All cultural resources encountered were recorded and documented with a written field description, scale drawings, and photographs. Each site was located using Garmin GPS map 60CSx GPS survey technology (accuracy 5-10 m). Literature searches were also conducted. There are two cultural sites registered included a historic bridge (SIHP # 50-10-44-26889) and burial/memorial (SIHP # 55-10-55-7388) (Attachment 2). Additional road side memorials were also found along the corridor. Some notable features include: 1) Hilo Railroad makai of Keaau-Pahoa Road (no remnants found along project corridor) and 2) Kazumura Cave running perpendicular to the project corridor (no openings found within project corridor). For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

B. Cultural Impact Assessment – Aulii Mitchell and Malia Luika Farias, Cultural Surveys Hawaii Community consultation, interviews, and literature searches were preformed to assess cultural impacts. Findings include: 1)No ongoing Traditional Cultural Practices along the highway corridor, except those that are ongoing at Maku’u Market Association; 2) Throughout the history of the project area, the roadway has been an important link between communities living mauka and makai of the corridor within the Puna District as a whole; 3) The roadway has also provided an important link to other communities, such as Hilo and Ka‘u; and 4) It began as a part of an ancient trail system, evolved into a horse carriage and card road, up until its present use as a two lane road. For more details on this presentation, see Attachment 2.

ATTACHMENT 1

The Environmental Review Process Flowchart

Keaau-Pahoa Advisory Group &The Environmental Review Process

Begin Agency Pre-Assessment

consultation (30 days)

KPAG #5 & 6 ● Confirm Reasonable Alternatives ● Prepare for Public Meetings

KPAG #7 & 8 ● Review Agency & Public Comments ● Review Technical Studies ● Screen for Preferred Action

Consultant toPrepare & Release

Draft EA ● Compare Alternatives ● Recommend Preferred Alternative

Public Hearing

Consultant to Prepare Final

EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Consultant to Prepare EIS if

RequiredOR

Prepare Environmental Assessment Technical

Studies: ● Aquatics & Water Quality ● Air Quality ● Archaeology ● Noise ● Social Impact ● Botany ● Flora & Fauna ● Economic ● Traffic

KPAG #9

Feb & March 2009

Sept-Nov 2009

Public Information

Meeting

May-Dec 2009April 2009 April 2009

Keaau-Pahoa Advisory Group (KPAG)Meetings #1-4

● Purpose & Need Statement ● Identify Universe of Alternatives ● Develop methodology for screening the Universe of Alternatives ● Identify Preliminary Alternatives ● Screen Preliminary Alternatives ● Identify Reasonable Alternatives

Dec 2009-Jan 2010

Incorporate Agency & Public Comments

30-day comment period

WE ARE HERE

ATTACHMENT 2

PowerPoint Presentation By Project Team

On August 28, 2009

9/28/2009

1

KEA‘AUKEA‘AU--PAHOA PAHOA ROAD ROAD IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTS

KeaKea‘auau--Pahoa Pahoa Advisory Group Meeting #7Advisory Group Meeting #7Monday, September 28, 2009 at 5:45 PMMonday, September 28, 2009 at 5:45 PM

KeaKea‘au au Elementary SchoolElementary School

Overview of the Environmental Overview of the Environmental Process and TimelineProcess and Timeline

By: Cheryl SoonBy: Cheryl Soon

9/28/2009

2

Overview of the Environmental Process

Meeting #1 on August 12, 2008

• Kicked-off and organized future KPAG Meetings

• Introduced the concept of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)

• KPAG Members were given workbooks with exercises to note the context and establish a sense of place in the region

• KPAG signed charter

9/28/2009

3

Meeting #2 on September 22, 2008

• The Environmental Review Process was outlined in a flowchart and was provided to KPAG Members

• The goals of the KPAG Members were outlined and included: Understand Purpose and Need Statement, Universe of Alternatives, and Process for Alternative Screening

• Began refining Purpose and Need Statement

Meeting #3 on October 27, 2008

• Began to develop the “Universe of Alternatives” for the project

• KPAG Members and Friends broke into two groups: Blue and Green Groups. The Blue Group’s job was to look at the roadway along Highway 130 and make suggestions on how to use it. Green Group’s job was to look at the area surrounding Highway 130 and to think about connections within the region.

• Presentation on traffic forecasting

9/28/2009

4

Meeting #4 on December 8 & 9, 2008

• Completed Purpose and Need Statement

• Refined and confirmed the “Universe of Alternatives” for the project

Meeting #5 on January 26, 2009

• Confirmed selections for reasonable alternatives

• Discussed the types of evaluation criteria that will be identified for the reasonable set of alternatives

9/28/2009

5

Meeting #6 March 30, 2009

• KPAG confirmed Purpose and Need Statement, Criteria, and Set of Reasonable Alternatives

• KPAG prepared for Public Informational Meeting

• Improve Roadway Safety• Configure the road for safe use by transit vehicles and

school buses, bicyclists, pedestrians and agricultural vehicles

• Improve corridor mobility and capacity to meet future demand

• Respect the natural beauty Puna• Complete creation of an alternative road that can be

used both as an additional travel route and for emergency use

• Context Sensitivity• Respond to intra-regional connectivity needs and

future land use strategies such as Village Center

Purpose & Need

9/28/2009

6

The Five AlternativesThe Five Alternatives

By: Robin BarnesBy: Robin Barnes

9/28/2009

7

Alternative 1: No Build • Includes the existing roadway plus current HDOT

commitments:

• Shoulder Lane conversion project including;– Conversion of Pahoa-bound shoulder as peak afternoon travel

lane– Construction of new Keaau-bound lane plus a new shoulder

• Installation of traffic signals at Shower Drive

Shoulder Lane Conversion project

Alternative 1 – No-build

Source- Draft EA Report, Wilson Okamoto

9/28/2009

8

Alternative 1 – No-Build

Source- Draft EA Report, Wilson Okamoto

Alternative 2 – Transportation Systems Management

• Includes low-cost TSM improvements to the intersections plus methods to improve multi-modal use of the corridor such as increased bus use, carpools and Park’ n Ride facilities

• Examples of potential TSM’s

• Turn lane additions or lengthening

• Roundabouts

• Transit improvements

• Merging and traffic flow improvements

• Will also include land-use strategies such as Village Centers to reduce the reliance on cars and transportation. (Next KPAG meeting)

9/28/2009

9


Bus Pull-out locations


• Potential Intersections under • Traffic Signal Control or Roundabouts• Shower Dr./Pohaku Dr.• Kaloli Drive• Paradise Drive • Makuu Drive• Ainaloa Blvd• Old Pahoa Road• Kahakai Drive

9/28/2009

10

ALTERNATIVES FOR HIGHWAY 130

Alternative 3 – 4 lanes to Ainaloa Blvd.Build by widening the road with two lanes in each direction (four lanes total) from Keaau Bypass as far as Ainaloa Blvd. After that, it would be one lane each direction (two lanes total)This alternative would include lengthened turning lanes at intersections, a widened shoulder for bicycles and pedestrians and bus pullouts

9/28/2009

11

ALTERNATIVES FOR HIGHWAY 130Alternative 4 – 4 lanesBuild by widening the road to two lanes each direction (four lanes total) from Keaau Bypass to Pahoa Bypass.

This alternative would include lengthened turning lanes at intersections, a widened shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians and bus pull outs.

ALTERNATIVES FOR HIGHWAY 130Alternative 5 – 6 lanes to Paradise

Dr., 4 to Kahakai, then 2 lanesBuild by widening the road to three lanes in each direction (total of six lanes) from Keaau Bypass to Paradise Drive.From Paradise Drive to Kahakai Blvd. would be two lanes each direction (total of four lanes).

This alternative includes lengthened turning lanes at intersections, a widened shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians, and bus pullouts.

9/28/2009

12

Build AlternativesDesign, Cross sections and Right of Way requirements

2- Lane cross section

Design, Cross sections and Right of Way requirements


9/28/2009

13

Design, Cross sections and Right of Way requirements


Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit

9/28/2009

14


Shower Dr. Kaloli Dr. Paradise Dr. Makuu Dr. Ainaloa Blvd. Makuu Market

Bus Pull-out locations

Pohaku Circle


9/28/2009

15



9/28/2009

16

Botanical SurveyBotanical Survey

By Ron Terry, Ph.D., Patrick J. Hart, Ph.D., and Layne Yoshida, B.A.

Geometrician Associates, LLC

Overview

• Area Surveyed:– 9.5-mile corridor around SR

130 from Kea‘au Bypass to Kapoho Road

– Surveyed ROW, plus 60 feet beyond for future ROW & slope easements, except homes, businesses, farms.

– Also: wider, rounded corners around each intersection.

9/28/2009

17

Overview

• Objectives:– Describe the vegetation;

– List all species encountered; and

– Identify and record threatened or endangered plant species

Setting:

• Geology is all 200-750-year Kilauea Ai La‘au flow

• Rainfall exceeds 120 inches/year.

• Natural vegetation is uniformly Lowland Wet ‘Ohi‘a/Uluhe Fern Forest.

9/28/2009

18

Disturbance:• Fires and historic cattle grazing reduced native

plant diversity and increased weed species. • Construction, use and maintenance of the

highway have completely disturbed the vegetation on most of ROW.

• Near ROW, disturbance from roads, driveways, utility lines and trenches, and clearing and construction for farms, homes and businesses

• Scale of disturbance on adjacent land is 1-10 acres, house lots, farms, churches, small businesses, and utilities

Made general land use-vegetation map of the whole corridor with Microsoft Virtual Earth© aerial images with land use-vegetation type categories: Agricultural, Urban,

Residential, and Forest (Native, Degraded Native, and Alien).

9/28/2009

19

Vegetation Findings:• Patches of native ‘ohi‘a-uluhe forest, most

degraded by invasives to varying degrees but some almost pristine.

• At finer scales, the vegetation pattern is a checkerboard

• The longest stretches of lower disturbance are on the largest parcels, owned by W.H. Shipman Ltd. and DHHL

• Only the low-stature native ‘ohi‘a-uluhe forest has potential conservation value, but none is in conservation, and most will eventually be disturbed, with or without highway

Flora Findings:

• We found 211 plant species, 24 indigenous natives, no endemics. Several of the native were obviously planted. Many yard-only ornamentals not counted.

• No rare, threatened or endangered species found, although we looked for them based on our findings in other surveys mauka.

9/28/2009

20

Conclusions:• Highway widening would NOT adversely impact the

botanical resources or vegetation of Puna or the island of Hawai‘i.

• To minimize impacts, take care to avoid introduction of invasive alien species on heavy equipment, particularly if brought in from other islands or the mainland.

• Landscape with appropriate native species.

FaunalFaunalREGGIE DAVID

RANA BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

9/28/2009

21

Background

Field Surveys were conducted between July 9 and July 13, 2009

Four Endangered or threatened species are known from the general area:

• Hawaiian Petrel

• Newell’s Shearwater

• Hawaiian Hawk

• Hawaiian hoary bat

Methodology - Birds

• The entire right-of-way was walked first from north to south and then from south to north on opposite sides of the existing roadway

• 22 eight-minute point count stations were sited along the roadway corridor

• Count stations were each counted once

• Birds were recorded both aurally and visually

9/28/2009

22

Results – Birds

• 461 individual birds of 15 different species were recorded

• One species recorded Hawai‘i ‘Amakihi (Hemignathus virens) is a native endemic species

• Two alien species Japanese White-eye and House Finch made up slightly less than 61% of the total number of birds recorded

• No avian species currently listed or proposed for listing under either the state of Hawai‘i of the federal endangered species statutes was detected during the course of the survey.

Results – MammalsMethodology• A running tally was kept of all mammals recorded while within the project

corridor

ResultsMammals were detected aurally, visually and by looking for tracks and signs

– Five mammalian species were recorded:– Roof rat– European house mouse– Dog– Small Indian mongoose– Cat

No mammalian species currently listed or proposed for listing under either the state of Hawai‘i of the federal endangered species statutes was detected during the course of the survey.

9/28/2009

23

Conclusions

• The modification of the current habitat within the proposed right-of-way is not expected to result in significant impacts to any avian or mammalian species currently listed as threatened, endangered or proposed for listing under either the Federal, or State of Hawai‘i endangered species programs.

• Additionally, there will be no appreciable difference in impacts associated with any of the build alternatives currently under consideration.

Recommendations• Audio playback nesting survey should be conducted for

Hawaiian hawks along the last kilometer of the proposed roadway corridor.

• If night-time construction activity becomes necessary, all lights should be shielded and or directed at the ground to reduce interactions with nocturnally flying Hawaiian Petrels and Newell’s Shearwaters.

• Any streetlights along the new road should be shielded, to reduce impacts on Hawaiian Petrels and Newell’s Shearwaters, and to comply with Hawai‘i County Code.

• It is recommended that to minimize potential impacts to Hawaiian hoary bats, woody vegetation taller than 4.6 meters (15-feet) high not be cleared between April 15 and August 15 each year.

9/28/2009

24

AquaticAquatic ResourcesResources

SNOOKIE MELLOAECOS

9/28/2009

25

Introduction

• AECOS, Inc. is a Hawai‘i company that has undertaken marine, stream and wetland biological and water quality surveys in Hawai‘i and the Pacific for over 38 years.

• AECOS, Inc. was contracted by SSFM International to ascertain aquatic resources and assess water quality within a 200 ft (60 m) wide corridor extending the length of the proposed project area.

• May 21, 2009, biologists conducted aquatic resource and water quality surveys along the 10-mi (16-km) segment of State Route 130 (Kea‘au-Pahoa Road) proposed for improvements.

Survey Methodology

• Biologists walked and slowly drove along both sides of the highway in the project area investigating each culvert, drainage ditch and stream.

• A 200 m corridor was surveyed using the middle of the highway as the center point surveying 100 m each side of center.

• Dominant vegetation, aquatic biota, water quality, and stream bed morphology were recorded for all culverts, drainage ditches, and streams.

• Literature search for other aquatic and water quality surveys in the same area.

9/28/2009

26

Survey Results - Waterways• Numerous culverts and drainage ditches are present along the highway within the

proposed project area to pass runoff from upland under the roadway.

• One intermittent stream is present: an unnamed stream (called Waipāhoehoelocally) and its tributary that cross the proposed project highway approximately 1.8 mi (2.9 km) from the Kea‘au Bypass highway divide and join down slope of the highway.

• There was no flow at the time of the surveys. Flows (when present) continue within a discernable channel to around the 200-ft (60-m) elevation, where stream water is directed out into the ground in the highly permeable Kilauea lava flows approximately 3.7 mi (5.9 km) inland from the ocean shoreline.

• The only water present in the vicinity of the project area was located in small, isolated pools in the tributary north of the larger channel of the stream and in a center culvert at 0.2 mi (0.3 km) south of the Kea‘au-Pahoa Road/Kea‘au Bypass split.

Stream bed in the vicinity of the Keaau-Pahoa Road, consisting of basalt bedrock and boulders.

9/28/2009

27

Downstream looking up towards the culvert under the Kea‘au – Pahoa Road

Vegetated Pāhoehoe flow above Railroad Avenue down slope of the unnamed stream.

9/28/2009

28

Streams and drainage features examined along the northern segment of the Kea‘au-Pahoa Road.

Drainage features examined along the southern segment of the Kea‘au-Pahoa Road.

9/28/2009

29

Survey Results – Aquatic Resources• The only invertebrates observed within the survey area was the giant African snail

(Achatina fulica), a terrestrial species observed in the tributary north of the unnamed stream and in the large box culverts at the northeast end of the project site.

• No aquatic organisms were present in any of the small, isolated pools inspected during the May 21, 2009 survey.

• A survey conducted by AECOS, Inc. (AECOS, 1998) in the unnamed stream, near Oshiro Road, revealed that the stream does support some aquatic biota within its course. A large plunge pool immediately upstream of the Oshiro Rd. bridge crossing was found to support small numbers of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) and American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) adults and tadpoles.

• In smaller pools nearby the Oshiro Road Bridge, pond snails (Physa sp. and Pseudosuccinea columella) and a dragonfly nymph (Anax sp.) were identified. The stream in this reach far upslope from the project area is perennial.

Survey Results – Water Quality• The small isolated pools may be semi-permanent

aquatic features, but their small size precluded any collection of samples for water quality analyses.

• A single sample was collected from an isolated pool in the unnamed stream, 260 ft (80 m) downstream of the Kea‘au-Pahoa Rd. on March 4, 2004. This sample revealed that total nitrogen was moderately elevated (mostly organic since inorganic nutrients were low). Water quality characteristics from this sampling event do not reveal any obvious water quality problems and in fact, water quality is indicated as good.

9/28/2009

30

Assessment• The proposed project site includes numerous drainage ditches parallel to and

draining by culverts beneath the roadway, as well as the unnamed stream and its tributary.

• A few isolated pools present in the project vicinity are ephemeral features that may support aquatic insect biota, perhaps including native species, though none was observed in the surveyed area. These pools would likely disappear during dry periods.

• The surface flow of this stream, even when considerable from heavy rainfall, does not reach the ocean, precluding recruitment of diadromous stream fauna, such as native ‘o‘opu or ‘opae.

• No threatened or endangered species (DLNR, 1998; USFWS, 2009a) associated with aquatic environments were encountered in the survey area and none is expected since no suitable habitats are present.

Jurisdictional DeterminationThe Clean Water Act or the Rivers and harbors Act

• As a general rule, drainage ditches are not regarded as jurisdictional, thus the man-made drainage features surveyed would probably not qualify as waters of the U.S

• The two stream crossings (1.8 and 1.9 mi) and an area between that exhibits wetland characteristics are isolated from the ocean, flow is intermittent and contributes only to the general groundwater aquifer of the Puna District.

• A preliminary meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers indicated that they would rule these waterways as non-jurisdictional. A letter indicating this should be forthcoming.

9/28/2009

31

Conclusion• Because the majority of features encountered are normally

dry drainage conveyances, alterations to the highway improvement plans proposed at the time of our survey will not change our assessment of no impacts.

• An absence of aquatic resources would be true for any alternatives within a reasonable distance of the existing roadway as surveyed.

• This conclusion holds true for the stream because aquatic resources here are limited to ephemeral pools formed in depressions in the basalt bed, seen away from the vicinity of the highway crossing.

Storm RunoffStorm RunoffHighway Culverts &Highway Culverts &

New Pavement Areas New Pavement Areas

GEOFF CASBURNCMF Engineers, Inc.

9/28/2009

32

Storm RunoffGoals:1. Determine the size of the existing highway culverts and bridges in order to

meet current DOT standards.2. Provide infiltration facilities to limit storm runoff from the new, wider highway.Methodology:Culverts and Bridges:1. Determine rainfall amounts as required by DOT standards.2. Determine watershed boundaries for each of the 50 culverts or bridges.3. Determine watershed characteristics for each watershed.4. Use computer modeling to determine storm runoff from each watershed.5. Use computer modeling to determine the required culvert or bridge size to

convey the calculated storm runoff beneath the highway.Pavement Drainage:1. Determine pavement areas.2. Estimate infiltration facilities needed in order to limit runoff from new wider

highway to the runoff that currently flows occurs from the existing highway.

KeaauKeaau--Pahoa Road Pahoa Road ImprovementsImprovements

Culverts and BridgesCulverts and Bridges

9/28/2009

33

9/28/2009

34

9/28/2009

35

9/28/2009

36

KeaauKeaau--Pahoa Road Pahoa Road ImprovementsImprovements

New Pavement RunoffNew Pavement Runoff

9/28/2009

37

9/28/2009

38

Storm Runoff Conclusions

• 1. Highway culverts and bridges will be modified, as needed,

• to meet current DOT design standards for flow capacity.

• 2. Runoff from the new pavement areas of the highway will

• be drained to infiltration facilities.

QUESTIONS & QUESTIONS & ANSWERSANSWERS

9/28/2009

39

ArchaeologicalArchaeologicalImpact AssessmentImpact Assessment

HAL HAMMATT CULTURAL SURVEYS HAWAI‘I

Methodology• The fieldwork component of this archaeological inventory survey was carried out

under archaeological permit number 09-20, issued by SHPD/DLNR, per Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-282. The fieldwork was accomplished between July 21, 2009 to July 29, 2009, by CSH archaeologists, Trevor Yucha, B.S., Jeff Fong, M.A., and Michelle Pammer, B.A., under the general supervision of Hallett H. Hammatt, PhD (principal investigator). The fieldwork required approximately 15 person-days to complete.

• The archaeological inventory survey involved a pedestrian inspection of the entire project area. The archaeologists conducted sweeps, with personnel spaced 5-10 m apart. All cultural resources encountered were recorded and documented with a written field description, scale drawings, and photographs. Each site was located using Garmin GPS map 60CSx GPS survey technology (accuracy 5-10 m).

• Background research included a review of previous archaeological studies and mitigation plans on file at SHPD/DLNR and a review of documents, books and maps at the CSH library. Land Commission Award documentation was researched using the Waihona ‘Āina online database and previous reports. Other sources such as the World Wide Web were utilized when necessary.

9/28/2009

40

9/28/2009

41

9/28/2009

42

9/28/2009

43

9/28/2009

44

9/28/2009

45

9/28/2009

46

Cultural Cultural Impact AssessmentImpact Assessment

AULII MITCHELLCULTURAL SURVEYS HAWAI‘I

MethodologyMethodology

Archival Research

• Historical documents

• Primary and secondary historical sources

• Photographs

• Existing archaeological survey and excavation reports

• Historic maps

• Published and Unpublished Historical accounts

• Land Commission Awards

9/28/2009

47


Sources of Information• University of Hawaiì’s Hilo Library• University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Hamilton Library• Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i Library• The Hilo Public Library,• Lyman Museum Archives,• The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) Library• The Hawai‘i State Archives• The State Land Survey Division• The Pāhoa and Kea‘au Libraries special collections• Hawai‘i State Survey Division in Honolulu• The collections and archives of the Bishop Museum• Waihona ‘Aina Corporation’s Māhele Data Base


Types of Data

• Legendary and traditional Accounts

• Pre-historical and Historical Accounts

• Previous Archaeological Data

• Religious and ceremonial knowledge and practice

• Traditional subsistence land use and settlement patterns

• Gathering practices and agricultural pursuits

• Hawaiian place names and mo‘olelo, mele, ‘ōlelo no‘eau and more

• Land transformation, development and population changes beginning in the early post-European Contact era to the present day

9/28/2009

48

MethodologyMethodologyCommunity ConsultationSampling and Recruitment

– Combination of qualitative methods, including purposive, snowball, and expert (or judgment) sampling

– Identify and invite potential participants to the study– Intensive case studies– Recruit people that are hard to identify, or are members of elite groups– Recruitment of local cultural experts, kūpuna, elders, and other individuals

with knowledge of the project area– Attend public forums to scope for participants– Expert or judgment sampling (assembling a group of experts)– Purposive sampling informed by referrals from known specialists and relevant

agencies• Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Hawai‘i Island Burial Council (HIBC), and other

community and cultural organizations• Cultural and lineal descendants and other appropriate community representatives and

members• Typically 3 to 9 attempts at contacting individuals or organizations

MethodologyMethodologyInterviews• Focus on obtaining in-depth information with a high

level of validity• Typically three to twelve interviews• Informed Consent Protocol• Unstructured and semi-structured interviews• Telephone Interviews• Use of past interviews from other related studies• Field Visits• Protection of Sensitive Information• Traditional Cultural Practices

9/28/2009

49

MethodologyMethodologyPreliminary Findings• No ongoing Traditional Cultural Practices along the highway

corridor, except those that are ongoing at Maku’u Market Association

• Throughout the history of the project area, the roadway has been an important link between communities living mauka and makai of the corridor within the Puna District as a whole.

• The roadway has also provided an important link to other communities, such as Hilo and Ka‘u.

• It began as a part of an ancient trail system, evolved into a horse carriage and card road, up until it’s present use as a two lane road.

• CSH contacted 97 individuals, organizations, community members, Native Hawaiian organizations, and government agencies– Of those contacted, over 75% responded– Of those that responded, CSH conducted two group interviews

comprised of three persons each, and conducted five individual interviews, and participated in one participant observation interview.

Aerial View of Ola’a Mill, Ola’a Sugar Company, Ltd. (Kea‘au Elementary School Library Special Collection)

9/28/2009

50

Sugar cane workers in field. Ola’a Sugar Company (Kea'au Elementary School Library Special Collection)

‘Ōla‘a Sugar Co.train engine & railroad workers

9/28/2009

51

Aunty Emily - (as she is fondly called) Iwalani Naeole was born in Pāhoaon September 23, 1956 to Mr. Gabriel Kealoha of Kalapana, Kaimu and Ms. Mary Makuakane of Òpihikao. Mrs. Naeole grew up in Òpihikaobut today resides in Maku‘u Hawaiian Homestead. Mrs. Naeole is presently the County Councilwoman, District 5, Puna, makai. Mrs. Naeole sat down with CSH for a “talk-story” interview on July 30, 2009

Ms. René Siracusa - was born in New York City on May 3, 1938, to Mr. Antonino Siracusa and Ms. Celia Aronovna Merson Siracusa. Ms. Siracusa grew up in the New York City area, and resides in Ka’oheHomesteads, Puna District, Hawai’i Island today. Ms. Siracusa is presently the President of Mālama O Puna, and serves on the board of the Puna Community Medical Center, and is the Fundraising Chair for the Pāhoa Weed and Seed Program. Ms. Siracusa participated in a “talk-story” interview with CSH on July 31, 2009

9/28/2009

52

QUESTIONS & QUESTIONS & ANSWERSANSWERS

MAHALOMAHALO

Documents

KEA‘AU-PĀHOA ADVISORY GROUP (KPAG) Meeting No. 7 … KPAG Mtg 7 Summary FINAL... · 2015. 8. 19. · KEA‘AU-PĀHOA ADVISORY GROUP (KPAG) Meeting No. 7 Summary Monday, September